6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
SO ORDERED.[27]
The LA held that petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence that his hypertension
was work-related. The LA also did not give much weight to the findings of Dr. Jacinto
because there was no showing that he conducted a thorough medical evaluation of the
petitioner.[28]
Aggrieved, petitioner sought recourse before the NLRC. On February 28, 2013, the
NLRC 3rd Division rendered a Decision[29] in favor of the petitioner, which reversed and
set aside the decision of the LA, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Labor
Arbiter dismissing the complaint is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new
one entered granting:
a) The claim for disability benefits assessed at Grade 1 disability;
b) Ordering respondent to pay the sum of US$60,000.00 as
disability benefits at the rate of exchange at the time of payment;
and
c) 10% of the money awards as attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.[30]
The NLRC held that the nature of petitioner's stressful work on board the vessel was a
factor in the aggravation of his hypertension. Also, since 120 days had lapsed without
petitioner having gone back to his former trade as a seaman, he is entitled to
permanent total disability equivalent to Grade 1 rating.[31]
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the NLRC
Resolution[32] dated March 27, 2013. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA assailing the decision and resolution of the NLRC.
During the pendency of the petition before the CA, the LA, on July 30, 2013, issued a
Writ of Execution. In compliance with the writ, respondents deposited the judgment
award before the NLRC Cashier.[33]
On November 13, 2013, the CA rendered a Decision[34] granting the petition. The CA
annulled and set aside the decision of the NLRC and dismissed petitioner's complaint,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The
DECISION of the NLRC in NLRC LAC (OFW-M) 01-000124-13 is hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and the DECISION of the Labor Arbiter
dismissing the Complaint filed by Julio C. Espere is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.[35]
Ruling in favor of respondents, the CA held that petitioner failed to establish by
adequate proof that his hypertension was work-related. It also opined that according to
the Standard Employment Contract approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63251
3/14